User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
OK, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 5:51:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Agree 100%. Best case scenario, IMHO, is that suppressors and barrel length limits get removed. I seriously doubt AOW's and machine guns will ever get removed. I SO hope so. I could never afford ammo for full auto/burst anyway unless Uncle Sugar was picking up the tab. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 5:57:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: No, once it’s on the registry it’s on the registry they can’t take it back. This is what I think too. |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 8:07:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: No, once it’s on the registry it’s on the registry they can’t take it back. You are talking about the same entity that once said it was perfectly fine to have a brace on your pistol 
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 9:52:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GreyBeardBiker: This is what I think too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GreyBeardBiker: Originally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: No, once it’s on the registry it’s on the registry they can’t take it back. This is what I think too. I am not following that logic. It seems to boil down to "no take-backsies" Seems like there is a big difference between they "might not take it back, versus they "cannot take it back". Have you guys actually read the rule? References to the Tax Forbearance are littered through the document (search "forbear" it is comes up 24 times). There is a section specifically on it. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf C. Discussion of Tax Forbearance The Department is forbearing the following NFA taxes on persons in current possession of firearms equipped with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ as described below: 1. Individuals and FFLs that are not Class 1 (Importer) and Class 2 (Manufacturer) SOT holders in possession of firearms equipped with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that are subject to the provisions of the NFA as of the date this rule is published will not be subject to the $200 making tax so long as they timely submit an E-Form 1 by May 31, 2023. 2. FFLs that are SOT Class 1 (Importer) and Class 2 (Manufacturer) holders in possession of firearms equipped with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that are subject to the provisions of the NFA as of the date this rule is published must timely register their affected firearms on an E-Form 2 by May 31, 2023. Because the E-Form 2, as noted above, does not require an accompanying NFA tax payment, ATF will not collect any taxes for registration of these weapons. In addition, the Department will forbear from collecting any transfer tax for the transfer of a weapon with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that is an NFA firearm for any transfer that occurred before the effective date of this final rule. With respect to the Department’s authority to seek taxes retroactively from individuals and FFLs (regardless of SOT status), the Departments notes that Congress in 1996 amended 26 U.S.C. 7805(b) to generally prohibit regulations relating to the internal revenue laws from applying retroactively ‘‘to any taxable period before’’ the date on which such regulation is filed with the Federal Register; in the case of a final rule, the date on which any related proposed or temporary rule was filed with the Federal Register; and the date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final rule is made public. When Congress made this 1996 amendment, however, it stated that ‘‘[t]he amendment . . . shall apply with respect to regulations which relate to statutory provisions enacted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.’’ Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168, sec. 1101(b), 110 Stat. at 1452, 1469. Because the NFA was enacted in 1934 (i.e., before the 1996 amendment), the pre-1996 version of 26 U.S.C. 7805 applies. That section provides: ‘‘[T]he Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect.’’ 26 U.S.C. 7805(b) (1994). Section 7805(b) did not include other restrictions on retroactive regulations. Thus, the Department has broad discretion regarding the retroactivity of taxes in this rule. However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question. Here is another section: First, the economic impact of the rule on affected individuals will be minimal. As just explained, the rule does not require individuals to abandon, surrender, or destroy their firearms with attached ‘‘stabilizing braces’’; at most, the final rule will require compliance with certain tax and registration requirements, but the Department has ameliorated the financial impact of the NFA’s taxes by forbearing from the collection of past making taxes from individuals and FFLs. The tax forbearance is part of the rule, and the rule is about braces pistols being turned into SBR's. If that entire rule is kicked out, I don't get the "they can't take it back" argument. What exactly are you fighting for and why? Will they take it back? Who knows....but can't? I don't get that take. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 12:08:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168, sec. 1101(b), 110 Stat. at 1452, 1469. Because the NFA was enacted in 1934 (i.e., before the 1996 amendment), the pre-1996 version of 26 U.S.C. 7805 applies. That section provides: ‘‘[T]he Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect.’’ 26 U.S.C. 7805(b) (1994). Section 7805(b) did not include other restrictions on retroactive regulations. Thus, the Department has broad discretion regarding the retroactivity of taxes in this rule. However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is the relevant part. I interpret it to mean that they can make the $200 tax retroactive. But, they also say "However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question." I don't put a lot of credence in that last part. What the department "believes" now may not be what they "believe" if the ban is over turned. "Belief" is not regulated under some statute. I also don't see any sort of "burden" should it be decided to make it retro. These FreeBR's were not handled through the standard process and constitute a special category within the system. In other words, it'd only take a few mouse clicks to spit out every single no stamp approval that went through. They make it sound like it'd be some overwhelming task to discover who they gave these special approvals to, and I beg to differ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 12:21:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is the relevant part. I interpret it to mean that they can make the $200 tax retroactive. But, they also say "However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question." I don't put a lot of credence in that last part. What the department "believes" now may not be what they "believe" if the ban is over turned. "Belief" is not regulated under some statute. I also don't see any sort of "burden" should it be decided to make it retro. These FreeBR's were not handled through the standard process and constitute a special category within the system. In other words, it'd only take a few mouse clicks to spit out every single no stamp approval that went through. They make it sound like it'd be some overwhelming task to discover who they gave these special approvals to, and I beg to differ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Originally Posted By panthermark: Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law 104–168, sec. 1101(b), 110 Stat. at 1452, 1469. Because the NFA was enacted in 1934 (i.e., before the 1996 amendment), the pre-1996 version of 26 U.S.C. 7805 applies. That section provides: ‘‘[T]he Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect.’’ 26 U.S.C. 7805(b) (1994). Section 7805(b) did not include other restrictions on retroactive regulations. Thus, the Department has broad discretion regarding the retroactivity of taxes in this rule. However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is the relevant part. I interpret it to mean that they can make the $200 tax retroactive. But, they also say "However, the Department believes it is appropriate to forbear this retroactive tax liability. Doing so is appropriate because of past public confusion about what sorts of weapons are in fact NFA firearms and because attempting to collect past making or transfer taxes would impose a substantial administrative burden on ATF to determine which individual or entity did in fact make or transfer the NFA firearm in question." I don't put a lot of credence in that last part. What the department "believes" now may not be what they "believe" if the ban is over turned. "Belief" is not regulated under some statute. I also don't see any sort of "burden" should it be decided to make it retro. These FreeBR's were not handled through the standard process and constitute a special category within the system. In other words, it'd only take a few mouse clicks to spit out every single no stamp approval that went through. They make it sound like it'd be some overwhelming task to discover who they gave these special approvals to, and I beg to differ. That's not what is being said. They are saying it's too difficult to determine just exactly who was the actual builder and manufacture of 250,000 units now registered (though they likely were anticipating about 5MM). Do you do it? Did Palmetto State Armory do it? Did Anderson do it? Did JoeBobs guns do it? Did a random employee do it to complete a sale? Did XYZ distributing do it? Nobody is saying they did it, now how do you prove who actually first built the compete <16"BBL firearm with system that allows ready shoulder firing? So they're saying F'it - name printed on receiver, will be it. And Anderson can't sue saying "woah, we didn't do that", because the Rule specifies - "Understand; that's known and stated". As to Forbearance - watch and see.. nothing is going happen. We can wager a TEAM membership if you think different. It's not going away, because USAG has authority to do that. By what basis can the court say he does not have that authority? Courts essentially never toss entire anything, for this very reason - only parts. Also, since everyone seems to miss it every 3'rd posting: USAG is not the ATF; and has specific authorities that the ATF does not. The letter is from the USAG - and ATF is processing the paperwork for the USAG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 12:23:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dknight16: Stocks ordered. There has to be some upside to this mess. Yep, thank you to the many. “No, I don’t have a stamp, all I got was an email. Do you want to see it?” Geniuses. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 12:23:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Intune: Yep, thank you to the many. “No, I don’t have a stamp, all I got was an email. Do you want to see it?” Geniuses. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Intune: Originally Posted By Dknight16: Stocks ordered. There has to be some upside to this mess. Yep, thank you to the many. “No, I don’t have a stamp, all I got was an email. Do you want to see it?” Geniuses. I have yet to see an SBR with a stamp stuck to it. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 10:04:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: That's not what is being said. They are saying it's too difficult to determine just exactly who was the actual builder and manufacture of 250,000 units now registered (though they likely were anticipating about 5MM). Do you do it? Did Palmetto State Armory do it? Did Anderson do it? Did JoeBobs guns do it? Did a random employee do it to complete a sale? Did XYZ distributing do it? Nobody is saying they did it, now how do you prove who actually first built the compete <16"BBL firearm with system that allows ready shoulder firing? So they're saying F'it - name printed on receiver, will be it. And Anderson can't sue saying "woah, we didn't do that", because the Rule specifies - "Understand; that's known and stated". As to Forbearance - watch and see.. nothing is going happen. We can wager a TEAM membership if you think different. It's not going away, because USAG has authority to do that. By what basis can the court say he does not have that authority? Courts essentially never toss entire anything, for this very reason - only parts. Also, since everyone seems to miss it every 3'rd posting: USAG is not the ATF; and has specific authorities that the ATF does not. The letter is from the USAG - and ATF is processing the paperwork for the USAG. You were also sure the ban would never be over turned under any circumstances, yet that article in the news popped up 2 days latter where the 5th court says the ban is likely illegal. Yeah, still being wrangled, but it's far from a slam dunk case of ever being over turned. ATF/USAG, tomato, tomato. WHOMEVER has the authority will make the decision. I don't see where the issue of "who" built it plays into this. People submitted their "pistols" and received a special forbearance approval. They have a database of all those special approvals. Sorting large amounts of data with a computer hardly qualifies as "burdensome." What I'm saying is, according to what you posted, it says the tax can be made retroactive. We don't know if it will, but they have the authority to make it so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 10:10:55 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: I am not following that logic. It seems to boil down to "no take-backsies" Seems like there is a big difference between they "might not take it back, versus they "cannot take it back". Have you guys actually read the rule? References to the Tax Forbearance are littered through the document (search "forbear" it is comes up 24 times). There is a section specifically on it. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf Here is another section: The tax forbearance is part of the rule, and the rule is about braces pistols being turned into SBR's. If that entire rule is kicked out, I don't get the "they can't take it back" argument. What exactly are you fighting for and why? Will they take it back? Who knows....but can't? I don't get that take. My reason for believing they will not take it back, is because those that have done the Form 1 on their braced pistols are now registered with the ATF. We know they want to know where these guns are. They love the idea of registered firearms. So, no, I do not think they will revoke the registration. Now, will they mail those that did the forbearance a $200 bill? Possibly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 10:29:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: You were also sure the ban would never be over turned under any circumstances, yet that article in the news popped up 2 days latter where the 5th court says the ban is likely illegal. Yeah, still being wrangled, but it's far from a slam dunk case of ever being over turned. ATF/USAG, tomato, tomato. WHOMEVER has the authority will make the decision. I don't see where the issue of "who" built it plays into this. People submitted their "pistols" and received a special forbearance approval. They have a database of all those special approvals. Sorting large amounts of data with a computer hardly qualifies as "burdensome." What I'm saying is, according to what you posted, it says the tax can be made retroactive. We don't know if it will, but they have the authority to make it so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: That's not what is being said. They are saying it's too difficult to determine just exactly who was the actual builder and manufacture of 250,000 units now registered (though they likely were anticipating about 5MM). Do you do it? Did Palmetto State Armory do it? Did Anderson do it? Did JoeBobs guns do it? Did a random employee do it to complete a sale? Did XYZ distributing do it? Nobody is saying they did it, now how do you prove who actually first built the compete <16"BBL firearm with system that allows ready shoulder firing? So they're saying F'it - name printed on receiver, will be it. And Anderson can't sue saying "woah, we didn't do that", because the Rule specifies - "Understand; that's known and stated". As to Forbearance - watch and see.. nothing is going happen. We can wager a TEAM membership if you think different. It's not going away, because USAG has authority to do that. By what basis can the court say he does not have that authority? Courts essentially never toss entire anything, for this very reason - only parts. Also, since everyone seems to miss it every 3'rd posting: USAG is not the ATF; and has specific authorities that the ATF does not. The letter is from the USAG - and ATF is processing the paperwork for the USAG. You were also sure the ban would never be over turned under any circumstances, yet that article in the news popped up 2 days latter where the 5th court says the ban is likely illegal. Yeah, still being wrangled, but it's far from a slam dunk case of ever being over turned. ATF/USAG, tomato, tomato. WHOMEVER has the authority will make the decision. I don't see where the issue of "who" built it plays into this. People submitted their "pistols" and received a special forbearance approval. They have a database of all those special approvals. Sorting large amounts of data with a computer hardly qualifies as "burdensome." What I'm saying is, according to what you posted, it says the tax can be made retroactive. We don't know if it will, but they have the authority to make it so. The reason it matters is one of those just makes up stuff as they go, and prosecutes or doesn't do so on a whim, and whos written comunications are pre-defined as meaningless, with applicability only to the specific person and only under those exact conditions, and with ability pre-defined as subject to being revocable whim of the week. USAG signed official declaration is another matter. But as you say - we shall see! In the meantime, it's been quite a while since I've seen an armbrace at the range. And right now the topic is in limbo; with equal potential of current actions such as selling or making or remaking an armbrace firearm, ending badly and subject to enforcement action depends on how this filters through the court system - USSC is not 5th cuicuit. and 5th cuicuit opionion was 2 of 3. That could well take years, because while I love 5th circuit, I'm also well aware it's an activist circuit at times akin to 9th; and can get overruled by USSC. Or not. The good news is mear possession of pre-existing, likely will continue to relatively free of enforcement action regardless. As everyone says, we shall see! My hope is this goes to USSC quickly, and USSC tosses the ban; even if that somehow means those who registered ended up losing that. For that to happen, O'connel needs to rerule. From what I can tell, he's slow-rolling that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 10:56:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: I have yet to see an SBR with a stamp stuck to it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By Intune: Originally Posted By Dknight16: Stocks ordered. There has to be some upside to this mess. Yep, thank you to the many. “No, I don’t have a stamp, all I got was an email. Do you want to see it?” Geniuses. I have yet to see an SBR with a stamp stuck to it. You haven't seen mine lol. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 11:09:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GreyBeardBiker: My reason for believing they will not take it back, is because those that have done the Form 1 on their braced pistols are now registered with the ATF. We know they want to know where these guns are. They love the idea of registered firearms. So, no, I do not think they will revoke the registration. Now, will they mail those that did the forbearance a $200 bill? Possibly. But they already know. "If" they reverse course due to the rule being kicked out, I would assume they would treat it like any other request to remove an SBR from the registry. They notate your file that that said weapon is no longer an NFA weapon, and move on. They don't delete your data, they just update your file. Now, "will they" try is the question. I don't know what they will do or when they will do it. If the rule is kicked back on just the APA portion, then I'm sure they will resubmit some new stupid rule and keep the Form 1's out there until THAT legal battle is complete. That could be a decade from now. It isn't that they don't have the authority to offer the FreeBR, it is the underlying reason to keep it that would be in question. Remember, according to the ATF rule, you never had a braced pistol. It was always an illegal SBR that they were allowing you to remedy for free by making it a legal SBR. If the rule is kicked out, it means you actually never had an illegal SBR (you had legal braced pistol all along), and thus, no need for the free remedy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 11:23:33 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By _DR: You haven't seen mine lol. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By Intune: Originally Posted By Dknight16: Stocks ordered. There has to be some upside to this mess. Yep, thank you to the many. “No, I don’t have a stamp, all I got was an email. Do you want to see it?” Geniuses. I have yet to see an SBR with a stamp stuck to it. You haven't seen mine lol. That sounds kind of cool, TBH. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 11:32:40 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: The reason it matters is one of those just makes up stuff as they go, and prosecutes or doesn't do so on a whim, and whos written comunications are pre-defined as meaningless, with applicability only to the specific person and only under those exact conditions, and with ability pre-defined as subject to being revocable whim of the week. USAG signed official declaration is another matter. But as you say - we shall see! In the meantime, it's been quite a while since I've seen an armbrace at the range. And right now the topic is in limbo; with equal potential of current actions such as selling or making or remaking an armbrace firearm, ending badly and subject to enforcement action depends on how this filters through the court system - USSC is not 5th cuicuit. and 5th cuicuit opionion was 2 of 3. That could well take years, because while I love 5th circuit, I'm also well aware it's an activist circuit at times akin to 9th; and can get overruled by USSC. Or not. The good news is mear possession of pre-existing, likely will continue to relatively free of enforcement action regardless. As everyone says, we shall see! My hope is this goes to USSC quickly, and USSC tosses the ban; even if that somehow means those who registered ended up losing that. For that to happen, O'connel needs to rerule. From what I can tell, he's slow-rolling that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By EDL: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: That's not what is being said. They are saying it's too difficult to determine just exactly who was the actual builder and manufacture of 250,000 units now registered (though they likely were anticipating about 5MM). Do you do it? Did Palmetto State Armory do it? Did Anderson do it? Did JoeBobs guns do it? Did a random employee do it to complete a sale? Did XYZ distributing do it? Nobody is saying they did it, now how do you prove who actually first built the compete <16"BBL firearm with system that allows ready shoulder firing? So they're saying F'it - name printed on receiver, will be it. And Anderson can't sue saying "woah, we didn't do that", because the Rule specifies - "Understand; that's known and stated". As to Forbearance - watch and see.. nothing is going happen. We can wager a TEAM membership if you think different. It's not going away, because USAG has authority to do that. By what basis can the court say he does not have that authority? Courts essentially never toss entire anything, for this very reason - only parts. Also, since everyone seems to miss it every 3'rd posting: USAG is not the ATF; and has specific authorities that the ATF does not. The letter is from the USAG - and ATF is processing the paperwork for the USAG. You were also sure the ban would never be over turned under any circumstances, yet that article in the news popped up 2 days latter where the 5th court says the ban is likely illegal. Yeah, still being wrangled, but it's far from a slam dunk case of ever being over turned. ATF/USAG, tomato, tomato. WHOMEVER has the authority will make the decision. I don't see where the issue of "who" built it plays into this. People submitted their "pistols" and received a special forbearance approval. They have a database of all those special approvals. Sorting large amounts of data with a computer hardly qualifies as "burdensome." What I'm saying is, according to what you posted, it says the tax can be made retroactive. We don't know if it will, but they have the authority to make it so. The reason it matters is one of those just makes up stuff as they go, and prosecutes or doesn't do so on a whim, and whos written comunications are pre-defined as meaningless, with applicability only to the specific person and only under those exact conditions, and with ability pre-defined as subject to being revocable whim of the week. USAG signed official declaration is another matter. But as you say - we shall see! In the meantime, it's been quite a while since I've seen an armbrace at the range. And right now the topic is in limbo; with equal potential of current actions such as selling or making or remaking an armbrace firearm, ending badly and subject to enforcement action depends on how this filters through the court system - USSC is not 5th cuicuit. and 5th cuicuit opionion was 2 of 3. That could well take years, because while I love 5th circuit, I'm also well aware it's an activist circuit at times akin to 9th; and can get overruled by USSC. Or not. The good news is mear possession of pre-existing, likely will continue to relatively free of enforcement action regardless. As everyone says, we shall see! My hope is this goes to USSC quickly, and USSC tosses the ban; even if that somehow means those who registered ended up losing that. For that to happen, O'connel needs to rerule. From what I can tell, he's slow-rolling that. Even if USSC overrules this ... I would be willing to bet that the ones that registered will get to keep their NFA approval ... thus classified as a factory SBR with no engraving requirement ... But if USSC does over rule the new classification ... I wonder if common use will override SBRs all together at that point ... Time will tell ... |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2023 11:31:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: The reason it matters is one of those just makes up stuff as they go, and prosecutes or doesn't do so on a whim, and whos written comunications are pre-defined as meaningless, with applicability only to the specific person and only under those exact conditions, and with ability pre-defined as subject to being revocable whim of the week. USAG signed official declaration is another matter. And what I'm saying, again, is WHOMEVER has the authority. You say USAG, so then it's USAG...SOMEONE had the authority to create the special approvals, and that same person will have the authority to remove it based on the rest of your post quoting the statutes and rules in it. Anyway, we're all just speculating at this point. There are valid arguments for it going both ways. USSC, I assume is the US Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm used to seeing the abbreviation SCOTUS, if that's the case. Same as the approval question, I don't know that it'll ever get to them. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I see the barrel length question and common use as an entirely different ball of wax. Some have tried to drag the entire NFA into the equation, but in the case of braced pistols being SBR's, it's not relevant from an abolishment stand. That will have to be addressed separately by the courts. Court cases are very narrow and specific to the issue at hand and rarely allow ad hominem or broader issues. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2023 4:59:31 PM EDT
[#17]
Pure speculation, but I would think if they overturn the brace rule, your braced firearm is legal again. So if you got the "free" approval, you can put a stock on it and be good. Or if you want, put the brace on and you have a pistol again. So you should be able to go either way. In state, just keep the stock on and your approval letter covers it. If you want to travel across state lines, put the brace on and you have a pistol again and you're good to go.
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 12:30:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Well, if nothing else, it's been fun speculating...I guess it gives us something to do while we wait to see what happens. IF the ATF gets its pee-pee slapped and the ban is removed, you can be sure of one thing, they'll continue to work at finding ways of f*cking us.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 8:38:00 AM EDT
[#19]
An interesting note...
Submitted my brace form on 5/1--nothing yet. Submitted a "regular" SBR form on 7/27 and it was approved today. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 10:42:09 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CenterMass0: An interesting note... Submitted my brace form on 5/1--nothing yet. Submitted a "regular" SBR form on 7/27 and it was approved today. Thats because the brace processing is a different department with a different budget. A different budget that can be closed upon demand. The NFA branch has a requirement to be cost neutral. They use the $200 tax stamp for the operating budgets of facilities, employees and software licensing. Someone last year provided an analysis and it was about $140 in labor to process a form1/form4. The remainder going to other expenses. Take away that $200 and you have much less of a incentive to process and provide resources. The ruling clearly being danger of being thrown out makes it less likely that those resources are provided. Thats why you pay the extortion fee. Nothing is free. Or just say ligma and do what you want. I have had NFA items since 2006 when it only took 4 weeks by mail to process. I also own a boat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 10:43:59 AM EDT
[#21]
I used to own a boat, sadly I lost it in a freak storm.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2023 9:08:07 PM EDT
[#22]
I lost all my boats in a hunting accident.
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 8/10/2023 9:01:19 AM EDT
[#23]
FYI Applied 2 form 1 on 2/12/2023 had one approved 8/9/2023 one still pending. Applied eform but mailed in fingerprint cards (which I did myself). FYI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2023 9:16:29 AM EDT
[#24]
I applied 2/9/23 and finally got the "Approved With Conditions" yesterday 8/9/23. Now to figure out what the "Conditions" are.
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/10/2023 11:00:04 AM EDT
[#25]
States it right at the bottom. "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F." This is why we're all wondering and discussing what happens to our no-stamp, non-engraved SBR's if the brace ban is over turned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2023 11:05:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: nod005]
[#26]
I know, I intend to read the rule today.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2023 11:27:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: I applied 2/9/23 and finally got the "Approved With Conditions" yesterday 8/9/23. Now to figure out what the "Conditions" are. Damn! That was a long wait. Mine was a bit over 30 days IIRC. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2023 7:59:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Second one submitted 5/18 approved 8/15.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2023 10:22:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GGGBeo50: Thats because the brace processing is a different department with a different budget. A different budget that can be closed upon demand. The NFA branch has a requirement to be cost neutral. They use the $200 tax stamp for the operating budgets of facilities, employees and software licensing. Someone last year provided an analysis and it was about $140 in labor to process a form1/form4. The remainder going to other expenses. Take away that $200 and you have much less of a incentive to process and provide resources. The ruling clearly being danger of being thrown out makes it less likely that those resources are provided. Thats why you pay the extortion fee. Nothing is free. Or just say ligma and do what you want. I have had NFA items since 2006 when it only took 4 weeks by mail to process. I also own a boat. Not a single dime of revenue from tax stamps is earmarked for the BATFE, or USDOJ ..... it all goes to the Treasury "general fund" They get a yearly budget allocation ..... |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 5:42:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Latest update:
 BIG UPDATE: Challenge To ATF Pistol Brace Rule Coming To A Head! Still waiting on a response, but additional information was submitted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2023 6:00:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By panthermark: Latest update:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALR2LOzQDGwStill waiting on a response, but additional information was submitted. I guess this is good. But still need the decision by the 5th circuit, correct?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 7:18:33 AM EDT
[#32]
Finally got my Form 1 tax-exempt approved.
I only did one. Submitted May 28 Pending Research (Trust verification) May 30 Submitted/In Process June 23 Approved August 24 Will I receive the stamped Form 1 in the mail? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 7:30:15 AM EDT
[#33]
No, the e-mail with approval is what you get. I just made a copy and placed it into my grip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 8:21:08 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TUFBOY: No, the e-mail with approval is what you get. I just made a copy and placed it into my grip. Problem is you have to carry all 4 pages of the email. I called the ATF and that is one of the questions I asked as the first page has the signature for approval. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 8:26:44 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Problem is you have to carry all 4 pages of the email. I called the ATF and that is one of the questions I asked as the first page has the signature for approval. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Originally Posted By TUFBOY: No, the e-mail with approval is what you get. I just made a copy and placed it into my grip. Problem is you have to carry all 4 pages of the email. I called the ATF and that is one of the questions I asked as the first page has the signature for approval. You’re not “required” to carry any paperwork with the firearm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 8:34:03 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CenterMass0: You’re not “required” to carry any paperwork with the firearm. Just saying what the lady at the ATF told me. Where are you getting your information from? Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to comply. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 9:24:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Piratepast40]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Just saying what the lady at the ATF told me. Where are you getting your information from? Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to comply. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Originally Posted By CenterMass0: You’re not “required” to carry any paperwork with the firearm. Just saying what the lady at the ATF told me. Where are you getting your information from? Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to comply. Unfortunately, this is one of those "light the internet on fire" questions. It's the same as asking lawyers for their opinions. Three lawyers will give you five different opinions. Some range officer will be along to tell you that you're required to show it to him or he'll report you to local law enforcement, while someone else will tell you you only need to show it to the feds. Some say any LEO can ask to see the paperwork. Me personally, for the NFA items I normally use at our local range, I make a double sided copy of the first and second pages of each one and put them in a seal-a-meal bag, and keep that in one of my gun bags. The only reason I bother to do that is that state police and sheriffs departments also train at this range. I've heard others say that they have copies of all of them on their phone or offline storage so can get them quickly if needed. Others say they make reduced copies of them. Some carry them in a binder much like family photos. Others say: FOAD, until you show me that you've paid your property taxes, I'm not showing you any of my tax paperwork. Let the shitshow begin! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 10:32:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Sorry, I didn’t mean to cause such a thread. I just figured the lady at the ATF would (should) know. I will just put a copy in my rifle bag. I am really getting old and would forget my head if it wasn’t attached.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 11:49:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Sorry, I didn’t mean to cause such a thread. I just figured the lady at the ATF would (should) know. I will just put a copy in my rifle bag. I am really getting old and would forget my head if it wasn’t attached. If you wanted to secure in your pistol grip, I imagine you can print reduced to two pages per sheet, and double sided, to fit four pages onto one piece of paper. Which you could then fold and tuck into your grip. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 12:07:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CenterMass0]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Just saying what the lady at the ATF told me. Where are you getting your information from? Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to comply. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nod005: Originally Posted By CenterMass0: You’re not “required” to carry any paperwork with the firearm. Just saying what the lady at the ATF told me. Where are you getting your information from? Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to comply. Not saying it’s a bad idea to keep it handy, just that there is no LAW saying you’re REQUIRED to do so. |
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 3:03:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: carbineone1964]
[#41]
I put in for one of these and was approved.. I guess we wait and see how it all plays out.
But I do not believe any court is going to take away the free ones that have already been issued in the registry regardless. If they say braces are OK again, that is fine. But I do not ever see them taking away what is in the registry now.. Yes if a positive ruling comes out at a high level Court. You can use them again.. But I see the beauty of the free SBR as you should be able to throw the stupid Brace away and use any stock you wish..I think that is the way I take it.. The rest will be stuck with the Brace as the only option..Maybe I am wrong on that, and feel free to correct me if I am.. And NO I am not afraid of them coming to haul all of us away that got in a freebie either, in a Train to an undisclosed location.. So now I have one paid for SBR too.. And two registered Machine Guns.. I figure after 600.00 in stamps the 4th should be free anyway.. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/30/2023 5:16:09 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By carbineone1964: I put in for one of these and was approved.. I guess we wait and see how it all plays out. But I do not believe any court is going to take away the free ones that have already been issued in the registry regardless. If they say braces are OK again, that is fine. But I do not ever see them taking away what is in the registry now.. Yes if a positive ruling comes out at a high level Court. You can use them again.. But I see the beauty of the free SBR as you should be able to throw the stupid Brace away and use any stock you wish..I think that is the way I take it.. The rest will be stuck with the Brace as the only option..Maybe I am wrong on that, and feel free to correct me if I am.. And NO I am not afraid of them coming to haul all of us away that got in a freebie either, in a Train to an undisclosed location.. So now I have one paid for SBR too.. And two registered Machine Guns.. I figure after 600.00 in stamps the 4th should be free anyway.. You're among the 250k (.6~8%) who did apply for the free SBR status. I'm in the other camp among the 40 million + that didn't. I didn't go the route of reporting myself to Biden's ATF because there were more negatives than positives and I'm willing to hedge my bet on the ATF losing in court. Either way, there are many scenarios and sub-scenarios for the big question of whether or not braces will be legal again. It will be interesting to look back on this time in five years and reflect on where we were on this. If I come out losing on this deal, then I really lose nothing, except a few hundred dollars in registering a few SBRs, but I'm will to gamble on that. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2023 9:00:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Submitted 4 on 5/30, one approved at 0730 today (with conditions).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2023 11:04:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mettlepig: Submitted 4 on 5/30, one approved at 0730 today (with conditions). Any clue as to the “conditions”? |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 9/10/2023 3:26:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: States it right at the bottom. "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F." This is why we're all wondering and discussing what happens to our no-stamp, non-engraved SBR's if the brace ban is over turned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2023 4:42:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Trumpet]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CenterMass0: An interesting note... Submitted my brace form on 5/1--nothing yet. Submitted a "regular" SBR form on 7/27 and it was approved today. WTF? I turned one in in Feb. Still waiting. ETA, I haven't kept up in a few months. What is the current status of this mess? Braces now ok? Arrange a boating accident? I'm waiting on my form 1 for a S&W M&P 15-22P. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 8:15:27 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Trumpet: WTF? I turned one in in Feb. Still waiting. ETA, I haven't kept up in a few months. What is the current status of this mess? Braces now ok? Arrange a boating accident? I'm waiting on my form 1 for a S&W M&P 15-22P. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Trumpet: Originally Posted By CenterMass0: An interesting note... Submitted my brace form on 5/1--nothing yet. Submitted a "regular" SBR form on 7/27 and it was approved today. WTF? I turned one in in Feb. Still waiting. ETA, I haven't kept up in a few months. What is the current status of this mess? Braces now ok? Arrange a boating accident? I'm waiting on my form 1 for a S&W M&P 15-22P. No idea how they are processing these. My buddy got the one he submitted on the very last day approved a few weeks ago and my 5/1 submissions are still untouched. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 9:29:10 AM EDT
[#48]
I submitted two together and there were five weeks between approval dates.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 9:44:32 AM EDT
[#49]
my 7th and final brace SBR was approved.
submitted 5/31 Approved 09/01. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2023 2:31:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By triburst1: I submitted two together and there were five weeks between approval dates. Shortly after I posted my last comment, they approved 2 of the 3 that were submitted on 5/1. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
